Rajveer Mutti, a.k.a. Rajpal Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJVEER MUTTI, a.k.a. Rajpal Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70711
Agency No. A097-744-673
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rajveer Mutti, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70711 2
BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964
(9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s October 4, 2011,
order denying Mutti’s motion to reopen because Mutti’s petition is not timely as to
that decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 557 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mutti’s motion to reconsider
because he failed to show any error of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of his motion
to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject Mutti’s contentions that the BIA failed to
fully consider his arguments and evidence or to adequately explain its decision.
See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --